Skip to main content

These are no longer the days of Lester Pearson, when peacekeeping was a matter of watching a quiet ceasefire line or supervising a recognized international border.

Most peacekeeping now is about trying to minimize bloodshed and create pockets of order in the midst of grim, intractable civil wars.

But in the 2015 election, the Liberals were eager for Canada to return to the glory days of Pearsonian peacekeeping, the better to strike a contrast with the Conservatives. So promise peacekeeping they did.

Story continues below advertisement

Harjit Sajjan, the Minister of Defence, is a former soldier who served several multiple tours in a war – Afghanistan. He is no naïf. But he is taking very seriously the government's desire to "support United Nations peace operations," and he is hinting that he will make "certain visits" on the ground, to find a mission for Canada to take part in. There is a sense that the Liberal government is searching for an international trouble spot into which it can send Canadian soldiers – sorry, peacekeepers – thereby satisfying the psychological needs of many voters.

Peacekeeping missions under consideration include Mali, the Central African Republic and Colombia.

The long, horrendous civil war in Colombia may actually be winding down. But the proposed African missions could prove to be no easier than Canada's difficult, deadly experience in Afghanistan.

Mali is an extremely dangerous country, where at least 53 peacekeepers have died. The Central African Republic has been similarly chaotic for years. This is the region where the distinguished Canadian civil servant Robert Fowler came very close to death.

Mr. Sajjan and Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion should think long and hard about what Canada can realistically do, and how much Canadian blood risks being spilled in the doing, before sending soldiers into harm's way in the most difficult parts of Africa.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies